Home
Latest images
Register
Log inMost probably they will use a nuclear warhead since it was actually designed against navy formations of several ships with a payload of 100+ kt nuclear warhead, but i was asking about normal HE penetration warheads if Moskit for example is intented to be used against such vessels as the Nimitz class or is 300- 450 kg warhead payloads not considered sufficient enough for such big vessels?
+56
LMFS
thegopnik
Sujoy
mnztr
PapaDragon
Cyberspec
dino00
Hole
hoom
Admin
Azi
The-thing-next-door
Peŕrier
Tsavo Lion
Singular_Transform
GunshipDemocracy
zg18
AK-Rex
Book.
Isos
Arrow
kvs
Stealthflanker
Rmf
2SPOOKY4U
jhelb
Mindstorm
JohninMK
Big_Gazza
chicken
max steel
artjomh
sepheronx
nastle77
magnumcromagnon
Mike E
collegeboy16
Werewolf
etaepsilonk
runaway
flamming_python
Rpg type 7v
George1
gaurav
Hachimoto
coolieno99
eridan
TR1
TheArmenian
Austin
SOC
Viktor
GarryB
KomissarBojanchev
Pervius
medo
60 posters
Anti-Ship Missiles Thread
Werewolf- Posts : 5914
Points : 6103
Join date : 2012-10-24
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
You have to keep in mind that there are anti ship missiles and there are anti ship missiles.
Older large Soviet missiles were often intended to destroy a ship... ie sink it.
Smaller lighter western missiles were often designed for mission kills so the target could no longer perform its mission.
That way you get Russian missiles with 750kg warheads... which needs a huge missile to deliver, and tiny western missiles.
Often when a kill was needed more than one smaller missile would be used.
The Moskit was specifically designed to take out AEGIS class cruisers by flying below their Standard SAM missile defences (ie below 7m) and fast enough to render their last line of defence (Phalanx) useless through high speed.
the reality is that against a military ship or a civilian ship the real danger is fire... as shown in the Falklands conflict it was fires started by the missile impact and fuelled by the remaining fuel and warheads that destroyed the ships that sank.
In terms of anti ship weapons the Kh-25 family would be ideal as an anti ship weapon... even including the anti radiation models which could be fired after the TV or IIR guided models to defeat any air defence systems that are turned on.
BTW TV and IR models of Kh-25 were developed but they were not cheap so the Soviet and Russian military did not buy them.
The domestic model of the Kh-38 will have a 250kg payload and a range of 80km with a variety of guidance options which should make it quite a deadly anti ship missile.
the Kh-31 and Kh-35 are also ideal weapons.
Older large Soviet missiles were often intended to destroy a ship... ie sink it.
Smaller lighter western missiles were often designed for mission kills so the target could no longer perform its mission.
That way you get Russian missiles with 750kg warheads... which needs a huge missile to deliver, and tiny western missiles.
Often when a kill was needed more than one smaller missile would be used.
The Moskit was specifically designed to take out AEGIS class cruisers by flying below their Standard SAM missile defences (ie below 7m) and fast enough to render their last line of defence (Phalanx) useless through high speed.
the reality is that against a military ship or a civilian ship the real danger is fire... as shown in the Falklands conflict it was fires started by the missile impact and fuelled by the remaining fuel and warheads that destroyed the ships that sank.
In terms of anti ship weapons the Kh-25 family would be ideal as an anti ship weapon... even including the anti radiation models which could be fired after the TV or IIR guided models to defeat any air defence systems that are turned on.
BTW TV and IR models of Kh-25 were developed but they were not cheap so the Soviet and Russian military did not buy them.
The domestic model of the Kh-38 will have a 250kg payload and a range of 80km with a variety of guidance options which should make it quite a deadly anti ship missile.
the Kh-31 and Kh-35 are also ideal weapons.
Werewolf- Posts : 5914
Points : 6103
Join date : 2012-10-24
http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/675/797/
520 kg in total weight and 40km distance the perfect ASM for helicopters and the payload is rather high could also be used against big ships unlike KH-25, with a promising result.
I thank you all for this information and i've another question about the jamming resistance of such missiles, one of the important things after the bandwidth and frecuency modulation,frequency hopping is the fact how much power you can transfer to a jamming device which is by far greater than the power supply for the radar homing guidance systemes on such small missiles with what the jamming devices can get on ships. Where there any tests or any articles writing about that matter?
520 kg in total weight and 40km distance the perfect ASM for helicopters and the payload is rather high could also be used against big ships unlike KH-25, with a promising result.
I thank you all for this information and i've another question about the jamming resistance of such missiles, one of the important things after the bandwidth and frecuency modulation,frequency hopping is the fact how much power you can transfer to a jamming device which is by far greater than the power supply for the radar homing guidance systemes on such small missiles with what the jamming devices can get on ships. Where there any tests or any articles writing about that matter?
KomissarBojanchev- Posts : 1429
Points : 1584
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 26
Location : Varna, Bulgaria
With there tiny range compared to real ASMs any X-25 carrier would be destroyed by SM-2s long before it came in range.
KomissarBojanchev- Posts : 1429
Points : 1584
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 26
Location : Varna, Bulgaria
Keep in mind that from the 1980s the SM-2 could be used as ASMs and they had the same range as the X-35 so with Mach 4 speed they would've been invincible to soviet AD, the only disadvantage being a small warhead. Can an anti-surface capability be done with the Buk and S-400?GarryB wrote:You have to keep in mind that there are anti ship missiles and there are anti ship missiles.
Older large Soviet missiles were often intended to destroy a ship... ie sink it.
Smaller lighter western missiles were often designed for mission kills so the target could no longer perform its mission.
That way you get Russian missiles with 750kg warheads... which needs a huge missile to deliver, and tiny western missiles.
Often when a kill was needed more than one smaller missile would be used.
The Moskit was specifically designed to take out AEGIS class cruisers by flying below their Standard SAM missile defences (ie below 7m) and fast enough to render their last line of defence (Phalanx) useless through high speed.
the reality is that against a military ship or a civilian ship the real danger is fire... as shown in the Falklands conflict it was fires started by the missile impact and fuelled by the remaining fuel and warheads that destroyed the ships that sank.
In terms of anti ship weapons the Kh-25 family would be ideal as an anti ship weapon... even including the anti radiation models which could be fired after the TV or IIR guided models to defeat any air defence systems that are turned on.
BTW TV and IR models of Kh-25 were developed but they were not cheap so the Soviet and Russian military did not buy them.
The domestic model of the Kh-38 will have a 250kg payload and a range of 80km with a variety of guidance options which should make it quite a deadly anti ship missile.
the Kh-31 and Kh-35 are also ideal weapons.
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
I doubt that- these things just dont pack that much punch- cause like you said rel. small warheads. Tho ofc. swapping the conventional ones with nukes would be devastating in case of a direct hit or near miss.KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Keep in mind that from the 1980s the SM-2 could be used as ASMs and they had the same range as the X-35 so with Mach 4 speed they would've been invincible to soviet AD, the only disadvantage being a small warhead. Can an anti-surface capability be done with the Buk and S-400?
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Wonder what could it be?
NEW CRUISE MISSILE FOR THE NAVY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION PASSED STATE TESTS
NEW CRUISE MISSILE FOR THE NAVY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION PASSED STATE TESTS
Military Industry Corporation (MIC) "NGOs engineering" state tests new cruise missile for the Navy of Russia, said General Director - General Designer Corporation Alexander Leonov.
"In September, the state completed testing of a new cruise missile and two sets of ground-based and sea-based missiles, based on this" - said Alexey Leonov. He spoke at a ceremony to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the enterprise "NGOs engineering" Reutov.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Most likely this is Sea Based and Land based Onyx system from NPO Mash
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Austin wrote:Most likely this is Sea Based and Land based Onyx system from NPO Mash
Onix has been in service for quite some time. I dont know perhaps it is but Im not sure.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Could this be an all-new missile? I don't want to get overoptimistic about something I haven't heard any about, but I wouldn't mind a new AShM... (The Brahmos-2 and Zircon are too "new" to pass tests.)Viktor wrote:Austin wrote:Most likely this is Sea Based and Land based Onyx system from NPO Mash
Onix has been in service for quite some time. I dont know perhaps it is but Im not sure.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Mike E wrote:Could this be an all-new missile? I don't want to get overoptimistic about something I haven't heard any about, but I wouldn't mind a new AShM... (The Brahmos-2 and Zircon are too "new" to pass tests.)Viktor wrote:Austin wrote:Most likely this is Sea Based and Land based Onyx system from NPO Mash
Onix has been in service for quite some time. I dont know perhaps it is but Im not sure.
I think I remember hearing that Zircon would undergo it's first tests in 2014, but I'm going to make a wild guess and say it's not Zircon.
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°112
NEW CRUISE MISSILE FOR THE NAVY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION PASSED STATE TESTS
GarryB Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:50 am
It definitely isn't Onyx... that is what Yakhont is based upon and has been exported to several countries already... not to mention it is what Brahmos is based upon.
A new cruise missile with two sets of land and sea launched missiles.
I would have to say by the description that they have the land and sea versions of the subsonic and supersonic land attack/anti ship KLUB missiles sorted and ready for service.
the export models are 3M-54E and 3M-14E.
Of course the domestic models are 2,500km range for the subsonic all the way, and perhaps up to 1,500km for the subsonic most of the way and high supersonic for the last portion missiles.
The only other option is that Onyx has now been replaced with Zircon.... both are quite exciting.
A new cruise missile with two sets of land and sea launched missiles.
I would have to say by the description that they have the land and sea versions of the subsonic and supersonic land attack/anti ship KLUB missiles sorted and ready for service.
the export models are 3M-54E and 3M-14E.
Of course the domestic models are 2,500km range for the subsonic all the way, and perhaps up to 1,500km for the subsonic most of the way and high supersonic for the last portion missiles.
The only other option is that Onyx has now been replaced with Zircon.... both are quite exciting.
nastle77- Posts : 229
Points : 307
Join date : 2015-07-25
GarryB wrote:
This is the large 4 shot missile launcher used in the original Krivak class frigates.
This is a later model missile, the early missile was a lot like the Australian Ikara in that it was a rocket with a torpedo slung under it.
The difference was that the first model Silex missile was a fully dual purpose weapon with built in radar guidance.
In the anti sub role, which was its primary role, the missile flew a ballistic path to the suspected location of the enemy sub and when it got there it dropped a torpedo into the water which spiralled down in the water listening for sub targets... when it spotted one it powered up its propulsion system and turned on its active sonar seeker and chased the target to impact.
In its anti ship role in the main body of the missile there was a radar seeker and a 300kg HE warhead. The torpedo was not released before impact and its warhead and fuel provided the extra power to sink a ship by providing extra explosive for the blast and extra fuel for incendiary effect.
The ship was seen as unbalanced in the west because "it was considered vulnerable to even a WWII Gearing class destroyer". Of course in the anti ship mode the Silex would have easily dealt with most WWII destroyers.
Later models of the missiles retained the anti ship capabilities but added IR as well as radar guidance to improve their anti ship performance.
This is the UKSK vertical launcher which is fitted to the newer versions of the Krivak Class vessels and one launcher replacing the old 4 tube launcher alone is a large step up in capability. Though the anti sub Klub missile is not a dual anti ship anti Sub weapon with 8 tubes the new vessels can have the anti sub klub missile that is every bit as capable as the Silex in anti sub use though probably better with its newer model more capable torpedo payload, in the remaining 4 tubes it could carry Oniks or Brahmos which of course have significantly higher anti ship performance than the subsonic Silex. Equally the tubes can be loaded with land attack cruise missiles, and subsonic and supersonic versions of the Klub system.
Was the Rastrub as powerful as the Harpoon ? it had a much shorter range apparently which probably didn't help much
What purpose will it serve in the antiship role esp most subs surface ships opposing it will be armed with the Harpoon
nastle77- Posts : 229
Points : 307
Join date : 2015-07-25
Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1410
Points : 1486
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?
They will travel together in task force with Sovremenny. Kynda or other ship that carry anti ship weapons.
nastle77- Posts : 229
Points : 307
Join date : 2015-07-25
Stealthflanker wrote:nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?
They will travel together in task force with Sovremenny. Kynda or other ship that carry anti ship weapons.
so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized
isn't it better to have multipurpose vessels like JNSDF in the region ?
sepheronx- Posts : 8527
Points : 8789
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 34
Location : Canada
nastle77 wrote:Stealthflanker wrote:nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?
They will travel together in task force with Sovremenny. Kynda or other ship that carry anti ship weapons.
so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized
isn't it better to have multipurpose vessels like JNSDF in the region ?
Yes, it is much better, cheaper and easier to maintain. Problem with Russia and its MIC, as well as generals is that there are too many of them, too many of them incapable of thinking properly, and they lobby for each project. So the shipbuilding industry has all these types of surface ship designs yet they cannot get a single one out on time or working properly because they are biting FAR more they can chew.
In reality, having a single type of costal ships using similar weapons/equipment (of course in smaller numbers) to protect Russia's cost, then having a single type of frigates and destroyers to help provide longer range operations. Similar weapons makes it cheaper, helps deal with the bugs, reduces time/costs in development and thus they could probably get ships out on time, on budget and in good quality.
But of course, that wont happen. Because it is so much better to have 5 different type of corvettes, two different types of frigates being developed, all with different types of sub systems for even similar types.
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Was the Rastrub as powerful as the Harpoon ? it had a much shorter range apparently which probably didn't help much
Was ASROC as good as GRANIT?
Rastrub was an anti sub missile similar to the Aussie Ikara, but it also had a built in secondary capability against ships with IR homing and an extra warhead on board of 300kgs or so. the combined mass of that warhead and the torpedos warhead would make it vastly more effective against a ship than Harpoon if it hits. And unlike harpoon the Silex does not scan the target with radar to warn it is coming...
What purpose will it serve in the antiship role esp most subs surface ships opposing it will be armed with the Harpoon
It is an anti sub weapon and would only be used against surface ships in self defence.
Udaloys don't have vertical launchers. So it will be a radical renovation i guess. So how costly it will be?
The Krivaks had an external four shot launcher for their Silex missiles so fitting vertical launchers suggests the same problems. The Talwar built for India has vertical launch tubes...
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Udaloy is an anti sub destroyer... why do you think it should be able to sink US destroyers?
Can I criticise the USS Nimitz because it can't operate at the same depths that a Kilo class sub can?
BTW Of course western experts are going to say subsonic anti ship missiles are better than supersonic ones... until they introduced smoothbore main guns on tanks they were inaccurate too, and while they don't use autoloaders in their tanks that is a serious problem as well.
the main problem with old Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles was they were huge and expensive and only a couple of Soviet vessels actually carried them and they didn't carry them in large numbers.
With every Russian vessel being equipped with UKSK launchers however that argument is moot, not to mention land based launchers and aircraft launched missiles as well.
Soon hypersonic missiles will make the gap even bigger... and the Russians also have subsonic missiles too in the form of the Kh-35 and Klub.
Having specialised anti sub vessels was a necessity, not a choice.
Togay modern Russian vessels will be fully multirole thanks to UKSK.
BTW did you know that the sale price of Harpoon was actually higher than for Yakhont... the cost argument no longer applies...
Can I criticise the USS Nimitz because it can't operate at the same depths that a Kilo class sub can?
BTW Of course western experts are going to say subsonic anti ship missiles are better than supersonic ones... until they introduced smoothbore main guns on tanks they were inaccurate too, and while they don't use autoloaders in their tanks that is a serious problem as well.
the main problem with old Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles was they were huge and expensive and only a couple of Soviet vessels actually carried them and they didn't carry them in large numbers.
With every Russian vessel being equipped with UKSK launchers however that argument is moot, not to mention land based launchers and aircraft launched missiles as well.
Soon hypersonic missiles will make the gap even bigger... and the Russians also have subsonic missiles too in the form of the Kh-35 and Klub.
so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized
Having specialised anti sub vessels was a necessity, not a choice.
Togay modern Russian vessels will be fully multirole thanks to UKSK.
BTW did you know that the sale price of Harpoon was actually higher than for Yakhont... the cost argument no longer applies...
nastle77- Posts : 229
Points : 307
Join date : 2015-07-25
GarryB wrote:Udaloy is an anti sub destroyer... why do you think it should be able to sink US destroyers?
Can I criticise the USS Nimitz because it can't operate at the same depths that a Kilo class sub can?
BTW Of course western experts are going to say subsonic anti ship missiles are better than supersonic ones... until they introduced smoothbore main guns on tanks they were inaccurate too, and while they don't use autoloaders in their tanks that is a serious problem as well.
the main problem with old Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles was they were huge and expensive and only a couple of Soviet vessels actually carried them and they didn't carry them in large numbers.
With every Russian vessel being equipped with UKSK launchers however that argument is moot, not to mention land based launchers and aircraft launched missiles as well.
Soon hypersonic missiles will make the gap even bigger... and the Russians also have subsonic missiles too in the form of the Kh-35 and Klub.
so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized
Having specialised anti sub vessels was a necessity, not a choice.
Togay modern Russian vessels will be fully multirole thanks to UKSK.
BTW did you know that the sale price of Harpoon was actually higher than for Yakhont... the cost argument no longer applies...
in the kind of war soviets trained for
large scale with possible use of tactical nukes
was specialized ships or aircraft neccesarily a bad thing ?
esp if a larger number of specialized vs smaller number of multirole platforms
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
in the kind of war soviets trained for
large scale with possible use of tactical nukes
was specialized ships or aircraft neccesarily a bad thing ?
esp if a larger number of specialized vs smaller number of multirole platforms
At the time the specialised platform was a necessity...
For anti ship use the Kirov class vessels carried the 7 ton Granit... ie SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK... it also carried the SSN-14 SILEX, but it was a cruiser and had the space for such large weapons.
For the Udaloy, the 8 SS-N-14 missiles took up the space of the 8 SS-N-22 anti ship missiles on the Sovremmeny... the choice is either to have 4 missiles of each type on a multi purpose anti ship anti sub destroyer or to have two ships... ASW and AShW. they did the latter.
The different vessels were totally different with different weapons and sensors and propulsion to perfectly suit their different missions.
today such a destroyer would have 4 UKSK launchers which could have any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and also land attack cruise missiles in them... with 8 tubes each that is 32 missiles in any combination... so a new destroyer could carry 8 Onyx missiles that replaced the Granit and Moskit, plus it can have 8 Klub ballistic rocket propelled torpedoes the replacement for Silex, and still have 16 tubes free for the same number again to have the fire power of 2 Sovremmeny class destroyers and 2 Udaloy class destroyers... or it could carry Brahmos and Klub anti ship missiles or various land attack missiles to give it a land attack capability no Soviet or Russian vessel has ever possessed.
The same change has taken place with aircraft with new aircraft able to replace a variety of previous aircraft in a variety of roles in a single mission...
The MiG-29M or SMT could perform the short and medium range interception roles of the MiG-21 and MiG-23, and also the short to medium range attack roles of the MiG-27 and Su-17.
artjomh- Posts : 150
Points : 184
Join date : 2015-07-17
GarryB wrote:today such a destroyer would have 4 UKSK launchers which could have any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and also land attack cruise missiles in them...
Yeah, but the anti-ship missiles will have a much lower range than before.
You are forced to go supersonic to defeat modern ship AD, but supersonic gives you massive range penalty. So, no more 900 kilometer range anti-ship cruise missiles. Which is both a blessing and a curse, I guess, since for 900 km range you kinda have to have a RORSAT, since without targeting you are limited to horizon.
Another pro/contra moment of new missile is warhead size. P-800 warhead is 2-3 times smaller than the one on P-500/P-700, so it has no chance of sinking a capital ship alone without going nuclear. And before you mention swarming, it is a method of punching through the AD, not of adding extra TNT. 6-12 missile swarm is there to make sure 1-2 missiles get through, but it's those 2 remaining vampires will be doing the heavy lifting. Which is incidentally why P-800 was never intended to be used against aircraft carriers when it was developed in the 80's, it was purely a destroyer/cruiser level missile (and yes, those kind of parameters WERE actually put into requirements).
So, we are back to medium-range nukes...
max steel- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
ASMs such as Onyx are completely networked and have a very good range for homing (search and lock ranges).
P.S. Wait till M=5+ hypersonic ASMs go online. I say about another 3-4 years at most. Prototypes are already flying.You may track the evolution of the ASMs into the formidable weapon they are from P-700 Granit. This was a revolutionary weapon.
Can anybody explain that technical link in layman terms as to why usa naval consider subsonic asms ?
The stuff he wrote went all over my head
P.S. Wait till M=5+ hypersonic ASMs go online. I say about another 3-4 years at most. Prototypes are already flying.You may track the evolution of the ASMs into the formidable weapon they are from P-700 Granit. This was a revolutionary weapon.
Stealthflanker wrote:hmm an additional material :
https://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison
Basically outlines consideration and design of anti ship missile. This seems explain well why US stick with Harpoon for so long and replace it with another subsonic LRASM-A and Kongsberg NSM.
Can anybody explain that technical link in layman terms as to why usa naval consider subsonic asms ?
The stuff he wrote went all over my head
chicken- Posts : 110
Points : 115
Join date : 2014-09-04
Any chance of Kh-35 being integrated into UKSK?
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yeah, but the anti-ship missiles will have a much lower range than before.
I would not say that exactly... many of the members of Klub... the subsonic all the way anti ship missile supposedly has a very long range, and the subsonic most of the way and supersonic last leg anti ship missile I have read has a range of about 1,500km or so.
But you could argue that the 500km range of the Granit and the 120km range of the Sunburn were the 1980s options while the much smaller lighter Onyx likely has a range of about 500km at most so the range performance has not changed a huge amount in some cases.
You are forced to go supersonic to defeat modern ship AD, but supersonic gives you massive range penalty. So, no more 900 kilometer range anti-ship cruise missiles. Which is both a blessing and a curse, I guess, since for 900 km range you kinda have to have a RORSAT, since without targeting you are limited to horizon.
ALlthough another aspect is the the C4IR should have been extensively upgraded too... the biggest change is the most dramatic is the 2,500km + conventional ground attack capability that the Russian Navy has never had before.
Another pro/contra moment of new missile is warhead size. P-800 warhead is 2-3 times smaller than the one on P-500/P-700, so it has no chance of sinking a capital ship alone without going nuclear. And before you mention swarming, it is a method of punching through the AD, not of adding extra TNT. 6-12 missile swarm is there to make sure 1-2 missiles get through, but it's those 2 remaining vampires will be doing the heavy lifting. Which is incidentally why P-800 was never intended to be used against aircraft carriers when it was developed in the 80's, it was purely a destroyer/cruiser level missile (and yes, those kind of parameters WERE actually put into requirements).
But then the logic behind such decisions are pretty sound... the US carrier group with AEW air support and AEGIS support meant just going with lots and lots of subsonic missiles was never going to cut it... assuming the missiles would be detected at long range the solution they took was speed to reduce reaction time... the cost being big heavy missiles that few platforms could carry.
The newer much lighter missiles means larger numbers carried and higher chances of defence layer penetration.
Speed increases chances of getting through... but so does numbers... speed and numbers.
And of course with subsonic missiles as well there is plenty of flexibility... carriers don't need to be sunk... one decent hit even with a conventional missile at supersonic speed should make it and the other carriers withdraw from the battle area and operate from max range... this alone will make carrier operations more dangerous and their strikes less effective...
So, we are back to medium-range nukes...
Well a 600km range S-500 on board... perhaps a small nuclear warhead on that... with its active radar nose sensor it could dodge incoming threats and hit ships 600km away...
The near future introduction of Zircon with mach 7-8 flight speed will create a more capable threat for opposing forces... the range reductions will be less of an issue for the Russians as they will be more interested in protecting their near by seas an oceans rather than hunting enemy forces in the pacific and atlantic...
For Russias client states then land based anti ship missiles with a range of only 300km would be fine.
Any chance of Kh-35 being integrated into UKSK?
For export or as part of a swarm concept where 4-6 missiles are loaded per tube in a way that they are all launched in a cannister that then releases them all in one shot. Or perhaps a structure that allows each to be fired individually that fits in the tube.
|
|
|